Propertarian Forumhttps://propertarianforum.wordpress.com
Exploring PropertarianismSat, 16 Dec 2017 14:47:06 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngPropertarian Forumhttps://propertarianforum.wordpress.com
Sovereignty: A Recipehttps://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/sovereignty-a-recipe/
https://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/sovereignty-a-recipe/#commentsWed, 11 Jan 2017 23:21:35 +0000http://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/?p=1935Continue reading Sovereignty: A Recipe]]>When you speak in operational language, then it is possible to construct proofs or recipes, much as you would write lines of code. Sovereignty is the highest value of the West. This is a recipe for how it is constructed.

“If you would be sovereign, you must fight. If you would win, you must confederate. If you would confederate, you must compromise. If you would compromise, you must accept limits on your actions. Sovereignty will be won only by those who desire to exercise it within limits considered reasonable by their peers.”

A key component of Propertarian insight is the idea of continua or spectra of phenomena, which is also related to equilibria. Natural phenomena can often be analyzed along spectra and seen to shift between equilibria. When discussing a phenomenon, the ability to identify a spectrum to which the phenomenon belongs allows for both categorization and identification of limits.

Self-Ownership

When discussing political philosophy, the terms slavery, freedom, liberty and sovereignty are often used.These particular states can be mapped along a spectrum, where the axis is self-ownership. Sovereignty is of particular importance to Propertarian philosophy because sovereignty appears to be the defining, fundamental value of Western Civilization. This topic is discussed in Propertarian Podcast 009, it is a major topic of my recent TheRightStuff.biz article, and of an upcoming video on my channel. This image was created as part of the content of that video.

The graphic lists only a few examples of many different titles which indicate the level of self-ownership (and all the privileges, rights and responsibilities attendant upon those ranks) of an individual within society: slave, juvenile, villein, tribune, lord, etc.

It should be noted that the notion of sovereignty, of radical self-ownership being displayed in a comparatively widespread distribution among Western men, could be viewed as the defining characteristic of the West.

In the first place, market transactions aren’t necessarily positive sum. If they are fraudulent or create negative externalities for those not party, they can be negative sum.

And in the second place, violence is itself a signal, and transmits information. A threat expresses a subjective evaluation just as an offer does in the marketplace. “Hey, don’t do that or we’re going to fight.”

And the initiation of hostilities demonstrates the authenticity of that information just as a payment does in the marketplace. One undertakes real cost, and real risk, in resorting to violence.

(In contrast, whining, and playing the victim DO NOT demonstrate the authenticity of grievances in the way that resorting to violence does, and so are liable and likely to prove negative sum, if indulged, just as theft is liable and likely to prove negative sum, in the marketplace, because it does not make a sufficient demonstration and exchange of value.)

Markets and prices on the one hand, and violence and threats on the other, are both necessary components to a stable, functional, and efficient society and economy. To suppress either wholly in favor of the other, would be to forego the benefits they offer, and to pervert incentives towards destructive outcomes.

No society which does either will be able to compete, long term, against one which makes a more sensible tradeoff between them, making best use of information supplied by both exchange and conflict.

Violence is the means of expressing the subjective evaluations not captured by price signals, which are as vast and varied as those which are.

Realistically, you have more power to get your way if there is only one leader. If there are multiple candidates, one of them might try to win your support by offering you something you want. Or you might be able to influence the coalition backing a particular candidate in some way. But there is no guarantee your candidate will win, and if not, you are SOL.

A king has to choose whether to give you enough to obtain your support, threaten enough to obtain your submission, or simply kill you. But in the latter cases, he must still give enough people, enough things, that they are willing to threaten or kill you on his behalf. And he is also forgoing more benefits by obtaining your submission rather than your support or your death rather than your submission.

It is within your power to make your support (including the cost of what you ask for it) worth more than your submission, and your submission worth more than your death. And so, if you are wise, and the king is wise, he will prefer to offer enough to obtain the first.

If the king is unwise, then you can fight. And others will rally to your cause if your claimant seems wiser.

Ending democracy, ipso facto, is a step in the right direction. Democracies have shitty incentives (Hoppe.) But even more damaging in the long term, democracies breed shitty people because democracies are vote farms and (if all votes count the same) the most economical way to farm votes is to breed dependent parasites.

Lysander Spooner said “a ballot either signifies a bullet, or it signifies nothing.” But a bullet is more honest.

All states require the voluntary consent and support of enough individuals and groups to compel the submission of the remainder.

And the coalition that performs this function always arises by negotiation and exchange (you want this benefit, or that, to participate in our coalition? Well, we want these concessions in return.)

Democracies actually set a fairly low bar for popular support at 51%. And a democracy will never be ruled by a coalition much larger than 51%. If you’re getting more than 51% of the vote, you’re leaving rents on the table. You could take more, or give less, and still win the election.

Additionally, if your aim is to maximise the profitability of an electoral victory, in terms of rents extracted, you will build your coalition of the cheapest votes, the most worthless and parasitic individuals.

A rich man’s vote is expensive, you have to not take most of his stuff. But if you do, you can buy many votes.

As the 51% feed on the productive, their numbers will grow. That’s what happens when you feed parasites. But as we said, you don’t want to win more than 51% of the vote. So the ruling coalition in a democracy is always in the position of being able to give its most productive members the boot and throw them to the wolves, to begin consuming them in turn. This is why democracies always become weaker and more parasitic, why “Cthulu only swims left” and we can observe, in every democratic polity, a persistent “ratchet effect.”

In contrast, a wise authoritarian will begin building his coalition of supporters with the best. And while he need not attract 51% support to maintain his rule, there is no reason to stop there.

Support is generally less costly and more profitable than submission.

So a sensible authoritarian will continue bargaining for support until there is no one left in need of compulsion except those who have nothing to offer which is worth what they demand in exchange for peaceful cooperation, whose demands are too costly or unreasonable to merit entertaining; in short, people who probably should be coerced.

So in summation, I do expect authoritarian regimes, on the whole, to be more friendly to liberty than democratic ones.

And this expectation is borne out by an examination of historical monarchies, especially European ones.

The allegation is often made (by libertarian anarchists) that what states do is fundamentally incalculable, but that it is always negative sum. In other words, we cannot know the absolute value of any state or state policy, but we can be certain about its sign.

Voluntary trades in the marketplace – as the argument goes – are always mutually beneficial (else they wouldn’t occur) and positive sum.

State policies differ in requiring coercion. If they did not require coercion, they could occur in the marketplace. But if they do, then someone is losing out, so there is no way to be sure they represent a net gain. Without the mechanism of voluntary exchange, the information transmitted by prices in a marketplace are absent and no calculation is possible. In all likelihood they represent a net loss, certainly a loss relative to the opportunity cost of the purely voluntary marketplace foregone.

But it doesn’t seem that states ever would have become ubiquitous or persistent if this were true. Empirically, state-ridden peoples have proven competitive against stateless ones. If error and parasitism were the whole story, they would not be. States, after all, are in constant conflict and competition with one another and with alternatives (or at least they were at one time.)

However, the argument is incomplete and therefore incorrect.

We can reasonably expect voluntary, fully-informed, exchanges – free of externality – to be Pareto improvements. (They make someone better off and no one worse off.)

But in the first place, market transactions don’t always live up to this standard, because they are not necessarily fully informed nor free of externality.

And in the second place, some of the things states do might; because they are of the nature of voluntary exchanges.

An individual exchanges the sum total of costs a state imposes (on them) for the sum total of benefits it offers (to them) every time they voluntarily choose not to move to the jurisdiction of another state. (And these exchanges can be made more precisely calculable by reducing the exit costs and increasing the number and variety of states on offer.)

Furthermore, all states require the voluntary consent of at least enough individuals and groups to successfully compel the submission of the remainder. And the coalition that arises to perform this function arises by a process of reciprocal exchange (You want such and such a boon to participate in our coalition? Well we want this concession and that from you in exchange.)

In brokering these exchanges, a Monarchy offers several advantages over a democratically elected government.

A democracy will be inherently and irreparably susceptible to negative-sum corruption because of the problem of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. A policy which benefits 1,000 people $10,000 each may be politically profitable even if it costs a million people $100 each. The concentrated interest will be relatively less hampered by information costs and coordination problems. So it will be able to muster more votes and resources in defense of the policy than those harmed will be able to muster against it, though the harm be much greater.

Nothing would stop anyone from proposing such a policy to a king. And a king could get away with implementing it. But a king, who owns his realm and title, as well as its capital value, would not benefit from doing so. The future revenue he could expect to derive from his realm and subjects would decline as a result. And so his incentive would be to veto such proposals.

Furthermore, in a majority democracy, if your ruling coalition encompasses more than 51 percent of voters, it’s leaving rents on the table. If you’re getting, say, 70 percent of the vote, that simply means you’re delivering more value than you need to and failing to extract as much as you could. You could take a little more and give a little less without losing the election. So in a democracy, we can expect the ruling coalition at any given time to consist of about 51% of voters (and those the worst 51%) and that does indeed seem to be what we see.

But conflict and compulsion, though inevitable and irresolvable under democracy, are costly and actually largely unnecessary. So we can expect a wise monarch to start building his coalition of supporters with the best and keep working his way down the list until the only people that remain in need of compulsion are those who have nothing to offer which is worth what they demand in exchange for voluntary cooperation: in short, people who probably should be coerced.

]]>https://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/propertarian-podcast-007-market-fascism/feed/4cropped-bloodoak.pngposeidonawokePropertarian Podcast #006 Malincentives of Democracyhttps://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/propertarian-podcast-006-malincentives-of-democracy/
https://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/propertarian-podcast-006-malincentives-of-democracy/#commentsMon, 19 Sep 2016 18:22:15 +0000http://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/?p=1889]]>Curt Doolittle and Eli Harman discuss the malincentives of Democracy, why Cthulhu always swims left, and what we can do about it.

]]>https://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/propertarian-podcast-006-malincentives-of-democracy/feed/3BloodOakRoundposeidonawokePropertarian Podcast#005: Evolutionary Strategy of Western Civilizationhttps://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/09/15/propertarian-podcast005-evolutionary-strategy-of-western-civilization/
https://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/09/15/propertarian-podcast005-evolutionary-strategy-of-western-civilization/#commentsThu, 15 Sep 2016 22:42:05 +0000http://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/?p=1611]]>Where Curt and I discuss the evolutionary strategy of Western Civilization: transcendence through the domestication of man.

]]>https://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/09/03/propertarian-podcast-004-propertarian-concepts/feed/4BloodOakRoundposeidonawokeCurt’s Most Accessible Video Yethttps://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/09/02/curts-most-accessible-video-yet/
https://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/09/02/curts-most-accessible-video-yet/#commentsFri, 02 Sep 2016 11:22:44 +0000http://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/?p=1576Continue reading Curt’s Most Accessible Video Yet]]>This video is Curt’s most accessible video yet. It’s very exciting to see these new, conversational videos. I understand: the scope of Curt’s work is so large, encompassing all of our science, that it is very difficult to comprehend, even for smart people. I think a couple of listens through this video will pay massive dividends and help us to spread this new rational, scientific language through which we can defend Western Civilization.

]]>https://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/09/02/curts-most-accessible-video-yet/feed/1CurtVideoposeidonawokeLivestreams Playlisthttps://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/08/30/livestreams-playlist/
https://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/08/30/livestreams-playlist/#commentsTue, 30 Aug 2016 15:12:56 +0000http://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/?p=1573]]>Curt has been doing regular video livestreams in the Ask Me Anything style. I will be collecting these videos and adding them to this video playlist:

Rik’s Questions: “I would like to better understand the idea of falsehood and deliberately non empirical acts and how these are actually affecting the genetic property of individuals. I am also interested in the concept of an alternate and competing judicial system to create a stateless private system of government.”

“Truth/Falsehood: How are we susceptible to falsehood, how does this manifest itself? What are the techniques of falsehood”

“Competing judicial systems. What would that look like?”

“Religion: How we can use religion to further the Western evolutionary strategy?”

00:00:00 – Intro

00:01:00 – Formulating and clarifying questions:

How are we susceptible to deception?
How do we prevent deception?
What would a fix to the problem look like?
What is the role of the Church?

Marx: Utopian version of history (Myth of Oppression vs Truth of Domestication)

The Truth

Aryan/Teutonic/Aristocracy = Paternalism = Human Domestication

German oath = Natural Law

Tell the Truth

Don’t Steal

Take responsibility for the commons (reciprocal insurance)

Ending these last mysticisms and pseudoscience will complete the Enlightenment.

Mysticism (religion)/Pseudoscience/Myth(Literature)/History is simply a method of communicating these rules across the division of cognition and labor. Need separate means for the genetic distribution (woman – brother – father)(trichotomy), and need separate means crossing the scale of classes (every 10 points of IQ).

Polytheism = The necessary separate mysticism for the divisions of cognition and labor. Allows for separation and competition between Law, Science, Myth (literature) and Religion.

Howdy, I’m Butch and you are listening to the Propertarian Podcast #3 on August 8, 2016.

00:34:00 – The Unasked Question: Why didn’t we complete the Enlightenment, and instead fell prey to the Pseudosciences?

Summary: The Problem with Surpassing Human Scale

Answer: Instrumentalism (extension of the perception of truth) is hard. We surpassed human scale (reached biomechanical limits and conceptual limits), now we require instruments (technologies both machine and conceptual) to manage our affairs. These deceptions all pretend to be ‘instrumentation’ (science), but they aren’t because they contain error. This created a market for lies, demand for falsehood. What is then missing? The ability to find and eliminate error. The solution: Testimonialism (the science of falsification or elimination of error). We can complete the Enlightenment by eliminating falsehood from our Science, and writing Law according to scientific principles.

00:43:00 – How to Reduce Error (Testimonialism)(falsification).

Here Curt executes an impressive dissertation on epistemology, to show the roots of the counter to empiricism (and the necessity of instrumentalism ).

We had the Enlightenment (perception of truth) at human scale, but now the challenge is to eliminate error from our instrumentation (our science) to perceive the Universe beyond human scale.

Full explanation of Testimonialism: how we counter error at every level and dimension.

01:10:00 – Is genetic homogeneity a requirement?

You can follow Curt on facebook (just search for Curt Doolittle), and on Twitter @curtdoolittle, and read is writings a Propertarianism.com.

You can follow me on Twitter @PoseidonAwoke and follow my blogs PropertarianForum.wordpress.com and PoseidonAwoke.wordpress.com. Thanks for listening and I’ll leave you with one last thought from Curt:

WE ARE THE MEN OF THE WEST

We hold formation despite our fear.
We speak the truth regardless of cost.
We attack the enemy despite our injuries.
And we will not rest until they are defeated.

Post Production Notes

I’ve edited podcasts for hours and had everything spliced together. It does not increase listens. I now spend 10 minutes editing podcasts to improve sound quality.

Noise Removal: Don’t talk for first five second of podcast to create a noise profile. Select those 5 seconds. Get noise profile. Then remove noise. Be sure to cut out those first five seconds of your podcast.

Last I ran an Amplify at -.6, to reduce the levels because the above filters were causing the peaks all in the red. Maybe this was not a good idea, maybe they were perfect. Will have to listen and determine.

Basic Post Production is now done. I decided to do zero edits for pops, etc. I just don’t think it’s a big deal. We’ll see if I get any feedback in that regard.